News
SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch debut may be pushed to 2022 by slow FAA reviews
In a rare sign of material progress, SpaceX and the FAA have finally released what is known as a draft environmental assessment (EA) of the company’s South Texas Starship launch plans.
Set to be the largest and most powerful rocket in spaceflight history when it first begins orbital launches, the process of acquiring permission to launch Starship and its Super Heavy booster out of the wetlands of the South Texas coast was never going to be easy. The Boca Chica site SpaceX ultimately settled on for its first private launch facilities – initially meant for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy but later dedicated to BFR (now Starship) – is simultaneously surrounded by sensitive coastal habitats populated by several threatened or endangered species and situated mere miles as the crow flies from a city whose temporary population oscillates from a few thousand to tens of thousands.
Reception and analysis of the draft and its timing have been mixed. On one hand, SpaceX’s draft EA – completed with oversight from the FAA and help from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – gives a number of reasons for optimism. In a sign that SpaceX is taking a pragmatic approach to the inevitable environmental review and launch license approval hurdles standing in front of orbital South Texas Starship launches, the company has actually pursued what is known as a “programmatic environmental assessment” (PEA).
Most importantly, that means that SpaceX’s Starbase PEA – if approved – will be more like a foundation or stepping stone that should make it easier to start small and methodically expand the scope and nature of the company’s plans for Boca Chica. Along those lines, as part of Starbase’s first dedicated environmental assessment, SpaceX has proposed a maximum of 23 flight operations annually while Starship is still in the development phase, including up to 20 suborbital Starship test flights and 3 orbital launches (or Super Heavy hops). Once SpaceX has worked out enough kinks for slightly more confident Starship operations, the company would enter an “operational phase” that would allow for as many as five suborbital Starship launches and five orbital Starship launches, as well as ship and booster landings back on land after all 10 possible launches.

In other words, SpaceX’s initial draft PEA is extremely conservative, requesting permission for what amounts to a bare minimum concept of operations for orbital Starship launches. At a maximum of 3-5 orbital launches per year, a PEA and subsequent launch license approved as-is would likely give SpaceX just enough slack to perform basic Earth orbit launches and no more than one or two orbital refilling tests per year. However, as an example, a five-launch maximum would almost entirely prevent SpaceX from launching Starship to Mars, the Moon, and maybe even high-energy Earth orbits without using all of its annual launch allotments on a single mission.
Perhaps most importantly, the draft PEA as proposed would unequivocally prevent SpaceX from performing the NASA Human Lander System (HLS) Moon landings it received an almost $3 billion contract to complete. Each HLS Starship Moon landing is expected to require anywhere from 10-16 launches to deliver a depot ship, HLS lander, and ~1200 tons of propellant to orbit. However, in terms of SpaceX’s prospects of developing Starship as quickly as possible, that’s actually a good thing. Above all else, SpaceX’s slimmed-down draft PEA should be far easier for the FAA to approve than a PEA pursuing permission for Starship’s ultimate ambitions – dozens to hundreds of launches annually – from the beginning. In theory, with this barebones PEA approved, SpaceX would then be able to build off the foundation with additional environmental assessments – like, for example, of expanding Starship’s maximum launch cadence.
Of course, SpaceX first needs the FAA turn this first draft PEA into a favorable environmental assessment (not a guarantee) before any of the above starts to matter. Based on the content of the draft itself and associated appendixes, SpaceX appears to have a decent shot at receiving a “finding of no significant impact (FONSI)” or “mitigated FONSI” determination. However, SpaceX began the process of creating that draft as far back as mid-2020, followed by an FAA announcement in November 2020. The implication is that the FAA managed to drag out a draft release process that some have estimated should have taken 3-4 months into an arduous 10-15 month ordeal.
Combined with the uphill battle it’s starting to look like SpaceX will have to wage for an orbital Starship launch license in South Texas, it’s looking increasingly likely that Starship, Super Heavy, and Starbase will be technically ready for orbital launch tests well before the FAA is ready to approve or license them. Barring delays, the public now has until mid-October to read and comment on SpaceX’s draft PEA, after which the FAA and SpaceX will review those comments and hopefully turn the draft into a completed review. Even if the FAA were to somehow take just two months to return a best-case FONSI, clearing Starbase of environmental launch hurdles, it’s hard to imagine that the agency could then turn around and approve an orbital Starship launch license – or even a one-off experimental permit – in the last few weeks of 2021.
Ultimately, that means that nothing short of a minor miracle is likely to prevent the FAA’s environmental review and licensing delays from directly delaying Starship’s orbital launch debut. There is at least a chance that Starship, Super Heavy, and Starbase’s orbital launch site wont be ready for orbital launches by the end of the year, but it’s increasingly difficult to imagine that all three won’t be proof tested, qualified, and ready for action just a month or two from now. For the time being, we’ll just have to wait and see where the cards fall.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk debunks pay package and lip reader claims in double takedown
Musk’s quick debunks highlighted once more that X is an ideal platform for directly countering misinformation.
Elon Musk recently took to X to debunk some misinformation about his 2025 CEO performance award, as well as some comments he made during Donald Trump’s banquet in honor of Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Musk’s quick debunks highlighted once more that X is an ideal platform for directly countering misinformation.
Musk’s pay package
Elon Musk’s 2025 CEO performance award was created as a path for him to gain a 25% stake in Tesla. It would also make him a trillionaire, provided that he manages to meet all of the performance award’s aggressive targets. This has not stopped critics from running with the apparent narrative that Musk will be getting the $1 trillion with utmost certainty, however.
This included the More Perfect Union account on X, which noted that “Elon Musk is set to make more than every U.S. elementary school teacher combined, according to the Washington Post.”
Musk responded to the pro-union amount’s post, highlighting that he has not earned any of his $2025 performance award so far. Musk also noted that those who believe he will be getting $1 trillion should invest in TSLA stock, as his compensation is tied to the company’s performance and growth. Investors who hold their TSLA until Musk achieves his full pay package would likely get notable returns.
Lip reader fail
Musk also debunked claims from the Daily Mail, which claimed that he made an “explosive” remark at Trump’s banquet for Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Citing observations from lip reader Nicola Hickling, the Mail claimed that Musk asked Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, “What is your opinion, is he a terrorist?” The publication also posted a video of Musk allegedly making the risqué comment on X.
Musk proceeded to correct the publication, stating that the lip reader’s observations were fake. Instead of asking the Pfizer CEO if the Saudi Prince was a terrorist, Musk noted that he was asking the executive about cancer medicine. “False, I was asking about upcoming cancer drugs,” Musk wrote in a response on X.
Musk’s comments resulted in numerous critical responses to the Mail’s video, with some X users joking that the lip reader who analyzed the clip should probably get a visual acuity test, or a better training course on lip reading at least.
News
Tesla Diner to transition to full-service restaurant as Chef heads for new venture
“I am leaving the Tesla Diner project to focus on the opening of Mish, my long-desired Jewish deli. Projects like Mish and the Tesla Diner require a sharpness of focus and attention, and my focus and attention is now squarely on Mish.”
Tesla Diner, the all-in-one Supercharging and dining experience located in Los Angeles, will transition to a full-service restaurant in January, staff said, as Chef Eric Greenspan said he would take on a new project.
A report from the Los Angeles Times says Greenspan confirmed through a text that he would leave the Diner and focus on the opening of his new Jewish deli, Mish.
Greenspan confirmed to the paper:
“I am leaving the Tesla Diner project to focus on the opening of Mish, my long-desired Jewish deli. Projects like Mish and the Tesla Diner require a sharpness of focus and attention, and my focus and attention is now squarely on Mish.”
Greenspan took on the job at the Tesla Diner and curated the menu back in March, focusing on locally-sourced ingredients and items that would play on various company products, like Cybertruck-shaped boxes that hold burgers.
Tesla Cybertruck leftovers are the main course at the Supercharger Diner
The Tesla Diner has operated as somewhat of a self-serve establishment, where Tesla owners can order directly from their vehicles through the center touchscreen. It was not exclusive to Tesla owners. Guests could also enter and order at a counter, and pick up their food, before sitting at a booth or table.
However, the report indicates Tesla is planning to push it toward a sit-down restaurant, full of waiters, waitresses, and servers, all of which will come to a table after you are seated, take your order, and serve your food.
It will be more of a full-featured restaurant experience moving forward, which is an interesting move from the company, but it also sounds as if it could be testing for an expansion.
We know that Tesla is already considering expanding locations, as it will be heading to new areas of the country. CEO Elon Musk has said that Tesla will be considering locations in Palo Alto near the company’s Engineering HQ, and in Austin, where its HQ and Gigafactory Texas are located.
Musk said that the Diner has been very successful in its first few months of operation.
News
Tesla adds new surprising fee to Robotaxi program
“Additional cleaning was required for the vehicle after your trip. A fee has been added to your final cost to cover this service. Please contact us if you have any questions.”
Tesla has added a new and somewhat surprising fee to the Robotaxi program. It’s only surprising because it was never there before.
Tesla shocked everyone when it launched its Robotaxi platform and offered riders the opportunity to tip, only to tell them they do not accept tips. It was one of the company’s attempts at being humorous as it rolled out its driverless platform to people in Austin.
As it has expanded to new cities and been opened to more people, as it was yesterday to iOS users, Tesla has had to tweak some of the minor details of the Robotaxi and ride-hailing platforms it operates.
First Look at Tesla’s Robotaxi App: features, design, and more
With more riders, more vehicles, and more operational jurisdictions, the company has to adjust as things become busier.
Now, it is adjusting the platform by adding “Cleaning Fees” to the Robotaxi platform, but it seems it is only charged if the vehicle requires some additional attention after your ride.
The app will communicate with the rider with the following message (via Not a Tesla App):
“Additional cleaning was required for the vehicle after your trip. A fee has been added to your final cost to cover this service. Please contact us if you have any questions.”
The cost of the cleaning will likely depend on how severe the mess is. If you spill a soda, it will likely cost less than if you lose your lunch in the back of the car because you had a few too many drinks.
This is an expected change, and it seems to be one that is needed, especially considering Tesla is operating a small-scale ride-hailing service at the current time. As it expands to more states and cities and eventually is available everywhere, there will be more situations that will arise.
The messes in vehicles are not a new situation, especially in a rideshare setting. It will be interesting to see if Tesla will enable other fees, like ones for riders who request a ride and do not show up for it.